Let’s Limit Term Limits

Voters in Grand Rapids approved a proposal Tuesday that limits the terms of our elected city representatives. My fellow citizens have in effect restricted my voting rights. Neither of my two city commissioners, Ruth Kelly and Rosalynn Bliss, can run again; my right to vote for them has now been taken away from me. They have both been effective leaders, and now they cannot serve as city commissioners once their current terms expire. Ever. Term limits are un-democratic.

We already have term limits: it’s called “losing the election.” Would that the term-limits proponents put as much effort into attracting and supporting new candidates as they did into passing term limits. But, proponents say, it’s just too hard to mount a campaign against an incumbent, and government needs “fresh faces” from time to time.

I understand that, but it doesn’t seem to me the problem warrants a lifetime ban on public office. So allow me to propose a compromise: What if we require officials to “sit out” a term after a certain number of years? After that, they’re eligible to run again. In other words, let’s limit term limits, so they don’t forever prohibit a talented official from seeking office again.

The amendment to the Grand Rapids city charter approved by the (slim) majority this week states, “No person shall be eligible for election as City Commissioner if they have served as City Commissioner for two terms, and no person shall be eligible for election as Mayor if they have served as Mayor for two terms.” What if we inserted, “unless their second term was followed by a full unserved term” [or words to that effect] ?

Let’s limit term limits, so they give newcomers a fighting chance but don’t permanently ban “the good guys/gals” from public service.

Christian Peacemaking on National TV

The CBS TV series “The Good Wife” depicted a Christian dispute resolution process in its October 5th episode. Entitled “’Dear God,” it portrayed a dispute between a farmer and the local supplier of genetically-modified seed, not unlike the dispute in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowman v Monsanto (2013) . The seed supplier—represented by the law firm featured in this series– sued his neighbor in court, then both agreed to Christian arbitration. The show depicted portions of the arbitration hearing,  including use of Scripture, to the initial befuddlement of the non-Christian attorneys. The two parties eventually stepped away from the table and reconciled and settled the deal on their own, while their lawyers argued with each other in the background.

Click here for a link to the episode — it’s an entertaining 45 minutes.

Overall, it portrayed the Christian dispute resolution process sympathetically. The producers got many things “right,” and I commend them, both for taking this on, and also for consulting with Ken Sande, former long-time head of Peacemaker Ministries, to learn more about Christian conciliation. Starting the hearing with prayer, the non-Christian lawyers learning to argue from Scripture, the more relaxed atmosphere where rules of evidence do not preclude testimony – these are all typical of Christian arbitration.

The arbitrator was more casual than the Christian arbitrators I know (including myself) – he didn’t mind circumventing the customary process, and he did little to make the lawyers comfortable with this foreign forum. But he was affable, and he admitted at the second hearing that he had made a mistake in the previous session, a nice sign of humility.

Perhaps the most endearing portion of the show was when the plaintiff’s attorney—Alicia, an atheist who is “the good wife” and star of the show — has a conversation with her Christian teenage daughter about how to interpret Scripture. The media often resorts to stereotype when depicting Christians but this scene rang true.

While the show referred to the arbitration as “the Matthew process” (Christians usually refer to it as “the Matthew 18 process” in reference to the chapter in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus outlines how Christians should resolve their disputes), it actually depicted the process in reverse. In Matthew 18, Jesus advocates negotiation first (“just between the two of you,” Matthew 18:15), then bringing along “one or two others” (Matthew 18:16). Christian conciliation further divides the role of the outside neutral(s) into two steps: mediation, then arbitration. In the TV show, the parties abandoned litigation for arbitration, and as the two principals began talking to one another at the table, the neutral was mediating, and finally the principals moved away from the table to negotiate their resolution. Most cases follow the opposite course: a failed negotiation leads to mediation, and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, parties go to arbitration.

As Ken Sande suggests in his blog, perhaps this show will help litigants realize that there is an alternative to litigating their disputes. My Christian conciliator colleagues like to joke that more people might use Christian ADR if there were a TV show that promoted it. This “Good Wife” episode is a start!

Pursuing Peace

During this year’s Peacemaker Ministries Annual Conference last week, I gave a devotional one morning on “pursuing peace.” The Bible exhorts us not just to “seek” peace but to “pursue” it (Psalm 34:14). The word translated “pursue” can also be translated “persecute” (cf. Romans 14:19; Galatians 1:13), offering an unusual perspective on how zealously we should pursue peace.

I don’t have any dramatic stories about how I myself have zealously pursued peace, but I heard two inspiring examples from conference speakers last week:

On a Sunday in December 2007, a heavily-armed young man walked into New Life Church in Colorado Springs and began shooting. He killed two teenage sisters, then himself. The church’s senior pastor, Brady Boyd, described for us how he later facilitated a meeting between the two sets of parents – of the sisters, and of the shooter–, all grieving the tragic deaths of their children. Apparently the meeting turned out to be very healing for all of them. I can only imagine the courage it took for these parents to meet, especially the parents of the sisters, David and Marie Works—David Works was himself seriously injured during the shooting. They truly pursued peace.

The other story of “pursuing peace” was told by Dr. Valery Shean, an American veterinarian who works in Uganda. She served two tribes that had been at war with each other for decades until she was able to help them make peace. But after about a year of peaceful co-existence, someone from one tribe murdered the leader of the other tribe, and Dr. Shean feared the tribes would resume their vengeful warfare. So she tracked the footprints of the murderer through the bush, to a hut in the other tribe’s village. She knew the young man was inside, and she demanded that he show himself; he refused. So Dr. Shean stayed outside of his hut for two days, pleading with him, and with God, for him to give himself up. She said she was lying prostrate on the ground, praying and fasting, until eventually the young man emerged and surrendered himself to the tribal elders. Justice was done, and the tribes once again live together peacefully.

Most of us will not be called to pursue peace in the wake of the murder of someone dear to us. But we have all been hurt or offended by people close to us. These examples demonstrate that it is possible, with God’s help, to “pursue peace.”

 

Detroit Bankruptcy Mediation, Part II

I wrote in April about the mediation team being used to facilitate the Detroit bankruptcy. I was intrigued about how it would work, and impressed at the novelty of using mediators. I’m now realizing that these folks are not “mediators” in the normal sense of the word. As we read more about the active efforts of this team to fashion specific outcomes, it appears that they may not be “neutral,” and that they may not be promoting party self-determination, which is the first principle of ethics for mediators.

Last month, one of the City’s creditors, Syncora, accused two of the mediators, Judge Gerald Rosen and Eugene Driker, of bias in the way they “designed and later executed a transaction in furtherance of their own personal vision” of preserving DIA assets, and of favoring city pensioners, at the expense of other creditors like Syncora. Syncora Brief 8-14

One of the proofs cited by Syncora to support their argument that Gene Driker was biased was the fact that his wife was a long-time board member of the DIA. Syncora this week apologized for saying that Mr. Driker hadn’t disclosed his wife’s connection to the DIA, when it turns out he had. It also apologized for casting aspersions on Judge Rosen’s character. Syncora’s apology – issued in the face of an order to show cause why it shouldn’t be sanctioned for accusing the mediators of bias – is so flattering of the two mediators as to leave one puzzled, especially given that Syncora has now settled with the City and withdrawn its objections to the bankruptcy plan.

It doesn’t undo the fact that one of the bankruptcy “mediators” has close ties to the DIA, that arguably should have disqualified him from serving, or at least from working on any aspect of the “grand bargain.” These “mediators” perhaps should be called “special masters” or some other term that recognizes the scope of their power in this case.

 

Mediation Results in Public Apology

While former Macomb County commissioner Phil DiMaria was running for a state house seat in 2012, an outfit called Main Street Strategies made robocalls to households in Eastpointe and St. Clair Shores, defaming DiMaria. After he lost the election, DiMaria sued Main Street Strategies and its head, Joseph DiSano. The case went to mediation earlier this year, and the results were reported in the Detroit Free Press this week.

The article says that the settlement specifies that DiSano is to issue a public apology in different formats, with DiMaria drafting the wording and Di Sano signing the apology letter. The settlement permits DiMaria to publish the apologies in local newspapers, with DiSano footing the bill. The article reported other provisions for the public apology:

“DiSano also is to dictate a robocall apology using his voice and ‘reasonable language’ drafted by DiMaria, according to the settlement. The robocall is to be paid for by DiSano and/or Main Street Strategies and must seek to duplicate as closely as possible the same households distribution used with the robocall that prompted the lawsuit.

“The settlement states that DiSano wants to personally apologize to DiMaria and his wife. DiMaria said all of the apologies are being finalized.

“DiSano also agrees to help DiMaria with a future political campaign, should DiMaria chose to run again. There will be free assistance within established parameters, which were outlined in the settlement. The apology may refer to this promise of future free assistance to lend credibility to the apology, according to the settlement.”

Phil DiMaria told the Free Press that Mr. DiSano was “very, very sorry for what occurred,” but never said why he did what he did.

Mediations often result in apologies, but they are not usually public. In this case, not only the apologies are public; other aspects of the settlement itself have been made public, through this newspaper article. Both Mr. DiMaria and his attorney gave statements to the Free Press, and Mr. DiMaria also felt free to disclose other aspects of the mediation that would typically be confidential, such as Mr. DiSano’s motivations for his behavior. A public wrong demands a public apology and, apparently, a public description of mediation outcomes.